Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 07 January 2021 20:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5060E3A0E21; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:31:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.361
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0CR-0on6eDR1; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CAF3A0E1C; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 12:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id y8so4205560plp.8; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:31:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4JvQYBclq92wXI+R9T0jU8fYttpS6UVDl3e04m2bbdw=; b=PI208p0nSHZsqbqRETaOU4qHfrgzwurIQjocAO8EwfPc4yfNPDvgIZvW8xp5i0ydYn LuIQI+SqfIabbzHGTZ60Z+jBPI/DN72s1OORTENhI16qzW0kLOawvI0vMYdNILrzHvHj X/g5CcRVss1NcnKqcu1yolmXjEXRe0WKx2Oep/90PUsafRBwckcJPMNgfXHmaFJQhrQQ 6PQ7bnAJKbLeyKJUuDPgaJdNg4xfZohYLDVgKkEn16UxM9cjjL4kkbC5tjMZV3r4AOvM /YVkLM0NPYYiFKsaO4HVbTtqSmwQUlPAF9Rb0YjXOdR6tqSH88iZ6VpB3q405cI97P5t JmcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4JvQYBclq92wXI+R9T0jU8fYttpS6UVDl3e04m2bbdw=; b=h2z1s+eeqVGv+qp+7nCT/ZXKpBEvTapy7WOEjOAZdo4JWyai6AWDmIaAdJy/1PieLY W3qpo4L4xFnqBS60AkaVDrAmZvpdArHMgmykNdxg6bbxYd2lNLopFBYemw23Su76TVAa s1Mi6Esl4/D0qT7UuS+DIFeNzSGRDxHlFe1m3MK3vN/2DD2dP6NMDMvOYdLmqu38nZIQ yyoXU3288png5pzAAQlF8cUfL3BOUuWJFktevk3aaPF9YawI0zC7CJFeZ0OnEDD3Nbap m9IQY/xCxOFYAx868pNBfv3pMCQYs7DVbJimZqFulACfFLhN9qjqnC6e/GSjo4A/F3ax eh4A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532YPUQjy4mzKexrIoETGYc14OGKj2/s/mZLYMPiwIsjHlvWIGm2 1V3onGaMg6jj26sfIySqUtaqD/UWppjioQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy75w4Eap5cmN73xCOEBjneJZapYDVO5aNLGgy7DHAk1D37H4VNAQtXFLKXHdMFkv1r1EnGyg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:474c:: with SMTP id y12mr220156pjg.175.1610051512675; Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:31:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id t135sm6347436pfc.39.2021. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jan 2021 12:31:51 -0800 (PST)
To: Philip Homburg <>,
Cc: IPv6 Operations <>, David Farmer <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 09:31:48 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Scope of Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-ula-scope-00.txt)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 20:31:54 -0000

On 08-Jan-21 00:52, Philip Homburg wrote:
>> I have an idea for what to call ULA's scope without redefining global scope
>> in RFC4007, how about we call ULA's scope "pseudo-global" scope.
>> What do other people think?
> In my opinion we need to kill the RFC 4007 scope concept. 
> We can define for example 'address types' that have no scope, but as a way
> to label different types of addresses.


Link-local needs an interface ID or interface index, which is meaningless outside the host.

All other unicast addresses are routeable, and do not require an associated interface ID. The range of reachability is always administratively defined, with default behaviours (ULA = limited domain reachability, GUA = global reachability).

We could have a greatly simplified RFC4007bis in that case.